Nehemia Gordon – The Torah of Niddah from Leviticus 15

two doves

Thus you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness when they defile My tabernacle that is among them. – Leviticus 15:31

If you have been blessed by a program please support Truth2U with a monthly contribution or one time gift. Thank you for listening!


Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download this episode (right click and save)


You might also like


  1. Tammy says

    What a great conversation. The whole thing was interesting and informative.

  2. Tammy says

    Oh! And I forgot to mention how wonderful it was to hear Nehemia mention there are other “abominations” according to Yehovah. It seems that word “abomination” only represents one thing to most Christians.

  3. Gary says

    Thanks so much for putting Nehemia Gordon back on your program. So much truth and said with such kindness!
    Blessings to all

  4. mark kolwey says

    Constantine 288-337 AD. Never used the name jesus the christ=anioted with PIG FAT. The name jesus did not exist until about 1650 when the J was invented & merged with zeus by rome. The Way has never called them selves christians. Jews ?? Sorry No J in Hebrew or greek soooo Whoo is J.C.? Little baby tammuz born dec.25 His people claim he’s the light, As you plug in your lights or kindle your lights Ask your self. Is it in lev.23? Why did YASHUA have to stand in the temple proclaiming `I AM THE LIGHT’? Was there a problem as allways?

  5. Valerie Knowles says

    good teaching . we have so many sacred cows we need to get rid of …..

  6. Yochana says

    Nehemia, the conversation cuts off with an abrupt ending. Is there more audio? or was that pretty much the end? 🙁

  7. jono vandor says

    G’day Yochana, I just listened back to the recording. It went right to the end and finished with the Truth2U music. The recording runs for 57:04mins. I’m not sure why yours stopped ?? I hope it works for you next time.

  8. MommySetFree says

    This really confirms the things i THOUGHT i was seeing on this topic of Niddah. We have been recently studying and praying about this with the hopes to understand it fully. There is so much “smoke” around this topic, but Nehemiah really just presented it so plainly, so clearly and just blew all that smoke away. Halleluyah! Thank you so much for addressing this topic, Jono (and Nehemiah)! I am bookmarking it, and sharing with other ladies who have been seeking the truth on this topic. Shalom to you and yours!

  9. Faelih says

    Yes, I loved and saved this onto my Mac! I’d love to delicious it, but I hear they are shutting that service down? Hmm, where to share, where to share. :). Thanks so much for this segment!

  10. Andi says

    Thank you so very much for this program! I can to this understanding….(some what)….but Nehemia explained it very well. Again I thank you!

  11. chryslyn B says

    In the 21st century it is ridiculous to consider a woman’s menstruation as unclean. Typical men’s talk. I read that the rabbi’s even smell the women;s sanitary towels etc… utter Rabbinical filth talk ! Jesus/Yeshua would put you straight on this subject !

  12. Steven says

    Chryslyn, Respectfully, Jesus would tell you only his father decides what is clean and unclean (we don’t decide for ourselves) and to obey his fathers law, because heaven and earth may pass away but his word will never pass away! 🙂

  13. zac says

    @mark kolwey I have a 1611 KJV and a 1580 Geneva Bible and Jesus is the name they use in those books that are both translated into english in those years. What was the name originally used in those translations?

  14. Sheila Ella says

    Awesome teaching!!

  15. JaanK says

    Someone said that say Jesus did not exist until 1650 A.D. that Jesus come from the name of Zeus. Although similaries might seem to exist in English for those with active imaginations; Iesous (Jesus) has no similiarity with Dios (Zeus) in the original Greek. Iesous is used in 250 B.C. Septuagent as the greek transliteration of the name Joshua. Xristos also is found in the 250 B.C. Septuagent as the greek translation of the word Messiah. The 250B.C. Septuagent was the Greek translation made by 70 JEWISH scholars for the Library in Alexander and for the Jewish disporia which mostly spoke Greek.

  16. Elisheva says

    Thank you so much — we have been sleeping in separate beds, and it is so hard to care for my special needs son during my period! I had never felt comfortable with it and I had no idea what it was that I was doing wrong. 🙂 This I can feel at peace with, knowing that I am not violating Torah.

  17. sojourner says

    @jaank – this is not really the forum to debate the merits, and otherwise, of the LXX (likely only completed between 130 and 100 BCE). Every translation has its use. But remember – LXX is exactly that, a Greek translation of the Hebrew original. Written in a language that represents a different world view, it was also made with all the usual issues and pre-conceptions of mankind, which means it sometimes represents theological interpretation rather than an accurate account of the original. Suffice it to say that the DSS vindicates the Hebrew Masoretic text.
    Back to your main point, where the etymology of words may be ambiguous, I always consider the final outcome. It is generally accepted (see Strong’s or any other biblical lexicon) that the original Hebrew form of the name of, what the ‘church’ would call, ‘Jesus’ is Yehoshua, also the name of the son of Nun, the first one to lead in Mosheh’s footsteps (Num 27:18 etc.). We find a shortened (Aramaic) version of this name as Yeshua in Neh 8:17, the same spelling being used in the Peshitta.
    Now my point (yes, I have one). Actually, it’s a question – how come we have ended up in English with the name ‘Joshua’ for Mosheh’s successor (an obvious attempt, as with most other personal names, at transliterating the Hebrew original), but with ‘Jesus’ in reference to the ‘New Testament’ (which bears NO resemblance to the original Hebrew)? Perhaps at least part of the answer can be found in the (anti-Torah and anti-Semitic) heart- and mind-set of xtians over almost 1,900 (note, not 2,000) years? Might it also be that this heart- and mind-set, which in combination with mankind’s inherent hunger for power and money ‘inspired’ the politico-ecumenical dealings of the 4th century, are borne out by the Latin Vulgate translation (completed between 382 and 405)? It is noteworthy that the Vulgate renders both forms of the name in the Tanakh, i.e. Yehoshua and Yeshua, as ‘Iosue’, whilst the very same name is given a completely different treatment as ‘Iesus’ in the NT! Spiritual archaeology is difficult at the best of times, but this looks like foul play if you ask me!

  18. Traphi says

    Just a note to Chrislyn B should she ever come back to read this. The term ‘unclean’ refers to ritual purity not ‘dirtiness.’ A woman’s menstruation is ‘unclean’ because it is associated with a death – the death of the ovum – the coming to an end of a potential life. It is death that is unclean. Likewise, a man who has an emission of semen (sperm = potential life) would be unclean.

Leave a Reply